A description of the efforts of home economists attempting to learn clothing and textile subject matter

The purpose of this study was to investigate the self-directed learning efforts of home economists regarding clothing and textile subject matter. The sample was drawn from members of the Ventura County Home Economists in Home and Community in Ventura County, California. The study employed a grounded theory approach using a modified interview schedule developed by Allen Tough. During data analysis, particular attention was paid to the nature and extent of planning exhibited by the participants of the study. The results of the study reveal that most of the learning undertaken by the participants of this study took place outside of the traditional educational setting. The majority of the learning projects identified in this study were conducted in an independent manner using a wide range of resources. The content of the learning projects was extremely varied, as were the reasons for undertaking the projects. The home economist's immediate environment (physical and social) had a more direct impact upon the course of a learning project than the home economist's educational level or degree of familiarity with the structure of formal instruction. This is consistent with the concept of the "Organizing Circumstance", proposed by Spear and Mocker (1984), which contests the notion that self-directed learning involves detailed preplanning and progresses in a linear manner. The participants of this study sought assistance with their learning projects from professionals working in areas related to clothing and textiles. These professionals were identified most frequently as professionals working in areas other than education. Retailers, dry cleaners or manufacturers had more direct contact to independent learners than did professional educators. Recommendations include suggestions for linking independent learners and professional educators.U of I OnlyETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permissio

Defining Terms Used for Animals Working in Support Roles for People with Support Needs.

The nomenclature used to describe animals working in roles supporting people can be confusing. The same term may be used to describe different roles, or two terms may mean the same thing. This confusion is evident among researchers, practitioners, and end users. Because certain animal roles are provided with legal protections and/or government-funding support in some jurisdictions, it is necessary to clearly define the existing terms to avoid confusion. The aim of this paper is to provide operationalized definitions for nine terms, which would be useful in many world regions: "assistance animal", "companion animal", "educational/school support animal", "emotional support animal", "facility animal", "service animal", "skilled companion animal", "therapy animal", and "visiting/visitation animal". At the International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ) conferences in 2018 and 2020, over 100 delegates participated in workshops to define these terms, many of whom co-authored this paper. Through an iterative process, we have defined the nine terms and explained how they differ from each other. We recommend phasing out two terms (i.e., "skilled companion animal" and "service animal") due to overlap with other terms that could potentially exacerbate confusion. The implications for several regions of the world are discussed

Defining Terms Used for Animals Working in Support Roles for People with Support Needs

The nomenclature used to describe animals working in roles supporting people can be confusing. The same term may be used to describe different roles, or two terms may mean the same thing. This confusion is evident among researchers, practitioners, and end users. Because certain animal roles are provided with legal protections and/or government-funding support in some jurisdictions, it is necessary to clearly define the existing terms to avoid confusion. The aim of this paper is to provide operationalized definitions for nine terms, which would be useful in many world regions: “assistance animal”, “companion animal”, “educational/school support animal”, “emotional support animal”, “facility animal”, “service animal”, “skilled companion animal”, “therapy animal”, and “visiting/visitation animal”. At the International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ) conferences in 2018 and 2020, over 100 delegates participated in workshops to define these terms, many of whom co-authored this paper. Through an iterative process, we have defined the nine terms and explained how they differ from each other. We recommend phasing out two terms (i.e., “skilled companion animal” and “service animal”) due to overlap with other terms that could potentially exacerbate confusion. The implications for several regions of the world are discussed